.NET 2.0 features
-
I'm interested ( in light of the post below ) to know how many people have taken to the new 2.0 features ? We all use typed containers, I am sure, but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators ? As I said on that thread, I used my first anonymous method, because it struck me as the ideal solution as I worked on it, before it's never seemed appropriate. I wonder if I'm just not in the habit yet, or this was truly the first time they were the right tool for the job. I love the idea of iterators, but I don't think I've used them in production code yet, and I imagine I need to look out for chances to change my mindset to be using them. How about you ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
I'm interested ( in light of the post below ) to know how many people have taken to the new 2.0 features ? We all use typed containers, I am sure, but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators ? As I said on that thread, I used my first anonymous method, because it struck me as the ideal solution as I worked on it, before it's never seemed appropriate. I wonder if I'm just not in the habit yet, or this was truly the first time they were the right tool for the job. I love the idea of iterators, but I don't think I've used them in production code yet, and I imagine I need to look out for chances to change my mindset to be using them. How about you ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
How about you ?
".Net wasn't designed for me."
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How about you ?
".Net wasn't designed for me."
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
"I wasn't designed for .NET" :rolleyes:
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
-
"I wasn't designed for .NET" :rolleyes:
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
"We're of incompatible versions"
-
"We're of incompatible versions"
"I'm unmanagable"
-- Now with chucklelin
-
I'm interested ( in light of the post below ) to know how many people have taken to the new 2.0 features ? We all use typed containers, I am sure, but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators ? As I said on that thread, I used my first anonymous method, because it struck me as the ideal solution as I worked on it, before it's never seemed appropriate. I wonder if I'm just not in the habit yet, or this was truly the first time they were the right tool for the job. I love the idea of iterators, but I don't think I've used them in production code yet, and I imagine I need to look out for chances to change my mindset to be using them. How about you ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
My hopes in .Net 2.0 was Generics BUT... I wished create some type like MyBox Now I wish a collection of MyBox objects, but I can't. I can have only a collection of MyBox, MyBox, etc, but not of "MyBox" :doh: Another problem is the ?? operator and the Nullable notation (int?, string?, etc). How I can have problems using these together, I ever use Nullable instead... I will use iterators when I have nothing more important to do... The only thing what I use and abuse is the provider model (membership, sitemap, etc). But have the problem what is developed to read configurations of the web.config. If you wish use in Windows Forms, will be needed a lot of work to read from app.config (I have mentioned, what even if you use class libraries, you need referencing things like System.Web.Configuration, Syste.Web.Security, etc) This is my points and rants :) -- modified at 19:39 Monday 14th August, 2006 Jesus is Love! Tell to someone! :-)
-
"I'm unmanagable"
-- Now with chucklelin
-
I'm interested ( in light of the post below ) to know how many people have taken to the new 2.0 features ? We all use typed containers, I am sure, but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators ? As I said on that thread, I used my first anonymous method, because it struck me as the ideal solution as I worked on it, before it's never seemed appropriate. I wonder if I'm just not in the habit yet, or this was truly the first time they were the right tool for the job. I love the idea of iterators, but I don't think I've used them in production code yet, and I imagine I need to look out for chances to change my mindset to be using them. How about you ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators
I'm not sure what "good code practices" are for anonymous methods, I just figure that it would be for a line or two of code, and this is the first time I've had something that met that requirement. As to iterators, I have yet to write my own iterator or type the word "yield". That's probably because of the nature of the code I write, rather than whatever kind of code you write that would leverage iterators. I use partial classes a lot, because it keeps the source file smaller. And typed containers, like you said, are everywhere. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer -
I'm interested ( in light of the post below ) to know how many people have taken to the new 2.0 features ? We all use typed containers, I am sure, but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators ? As I said on that thread, I used my first anonymous method, because it struck me as the ideal solution as I worked on it, before it's never seemed appropriate. I wonder if I'm just not in the habit yet, or this was truly the first time they were the right tool for the job. I love the idea of iterators, but I don't think I've used them in production code yet, and I imagine I need to look out for chances to change my mindset to be using them. How about you ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Generics, obviously. Iterators not yet, mainly because the built in collection classes already do what I need. Nullable types? I want to since they match up with nullable fields in databases so nicely, but the effort involved in retrofitting what I currently have just makes me cringe. It'll happen next clean-up iteration, but not today. And anonymous methods? To me they are like the DataSource control in ASP.NET. They let you get something done quickly and without needing to bother anyone else, but they just scream out "quick and dirty" to me. Give the code the respect of at least having a name and a place to live.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
I'm interested ( in light of the post below ) to know how many people have taken to the new 2.0 features ? We all use typed containers, I am sure, but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators ? As I said on that thread, I used my first anonymous method, because it struck me as the ideal solution as I worked on it, before it's never seemed appropriate. I wonder if I'm just not in the habit yet, or this was truly the first time they were the right tool for the job. I love the idea of iterators, but I don't think I've used them in production code yet, and I imagine I need to look out for chances to change my mindset to be using them. How about you ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Anonymous methods for event handlers that consist of one or two lines. It always irritated me to have to pollute the class namespace with those, so it works out nicely.
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
Generics, obviously. Iterators not yet, mainly because the built in collection classes already do what I need. Nullable types? I want to since they match up with nullable fields in databases so nicely, but the effort involved in retrofitting what I currently have just makes me cringe. It'll happen next clean-up iteration, but not today. And anonymous methods? To me they are like the DataSource control in ASP.NET. They let you get something done quickly and without needing to bother anyone else, but they just scream out "quick and dirty" to me. Give the code the respect of at least having a name and a place to live.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Nullable types
Nullable types are utterly useless, IMHO, because they have no correspondence to DBNull.Value, which is what I care about. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer -
Chris Maunder wrote:
Nullable types
Nullable types are utterly useless, IMHO, because they have no correspondence to DBNull.Value, which is what I care about. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer -
I'm interested ( in light of the post below ) to know how many people have taken to the new 2.0 features ? We all use typed containers, I am sure, but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators ? As I said on that thread, I used my first anonymous method, because it struck me as the ideal solution as I worked on it, before it's never seemed appropriate. I wonder if I'm just not in the habit yet, or this was truly the first time they were the right tool for the job. I love the idea of iterators, but I don't think I've used them in production code yet, and I imagine I need to look out for chances to change my mindset to be using them. How about you ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Generics, anonymous methods, yield, DynamicMethod, static and partial classes, separate visibility levels for property accessors, delegate co/contravariance, Marshal.GetDelegateForFunctionPointer(), debugger visualizers - I've used all of those and more. .NET 2.0 is :cool: !
-
Generics, anonymous methods, yield, DynamicMethod, static and partial classes, separate visibility levels for property accessors, delegate co/contravariance, Marshal.GetDelegateForFunctionPointer(), debugger visualizers - I've used all of those and more. .NET 2.0 is :cool: !
J. Dunlap wrote:
delegate co/contravariance
What's that?
J. Dunlap wrote:
Marshal.GetDelegateForFunctionPointer(),
When do you use that?
J. Dunlap wrote:
debugger visualizers
Are these things you've written, or using the visualizers already in the debugger?
J. Dunlap wrote:
separate visibility levels for property accessors
Ah, I forgot about that!
J. Dunlap wrote:
DynamicMethod
Say, do you have those dynamic property setters folded into MyXaml yet? ;P Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer -
J. Dunlap wrote:
delegate co/contravariance
What's that?
J. Dunlap wrote:
Marshal.GetDelegateForFunctionPointer(),
When do you use that?
J. Dunlap wrote:
debugger visualizers
Are these things you've written, or using the visualizers already in the debugger?
J. Dunlap wrote:
separate visibility levels for property accessors
Ah, I forgot about that!
J. Dunlap wrote:
DynamicMethod
Say, do you have those dynamic property setters folded into MyXaml yet? ;P Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmerMarc Clifton wrote:
What's that?
Co/contravariance is where the return type or argument types of the method that a delegate wraps don't have to be the exact same types as declared in the delegate signature. The return type on the method can be a type derived from the delegate's return type, and the arguments can be a less specific type than those declared in the delegate signature.
//Covariance:
public delegate Control CovarianceExampleDelegate;public class CovarianceExample
{
Form GetForm()
{
...
}void Example()
{
//CovarianceExampleDelegate's declared type is Control, but we can create an instance of it
//based on the GetForm() method because GetForm's return type is derived from
//CovarianceExampleDelegate's return type
CovarianceExampleDelegate d = GetForm;
}
}//Contravariance:
public delegate void ContravarianceExampleDelegate(string s);
public class ContravarianceExample
{
void Add(object o)
{
//...
}
void Example()
{
//Add()'s argument type is 'object' rather than 'string', but this works because 'string' is
//derived from 'object'
ContravarianceExampleDelegate d = Add;
}
}Marc Clifton wrote:
When do you use that? [Marshal.GetDelegateForFunctionPointer()]
I used it to dynamically call a method in a C-style DLL without declaring the P/Invoke sig at compile time. You can also do things like execute raw machine code.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Are these things you've written, or using the visualizers already in the debugger?
I wrote a GraphicsPath visualizer and a Bitmap visualizer.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Say, do you have those dynamic property setters folded
-
My hopes in .Net 2.0 was Generics BUT... I wished create some type like MyBox Now I wish a collection of MyBox objects, but I can't. I can have only a collection of MyBox, MyBox, etc, but not of "MyBox" :doh: Another problem is the ?? operator and the Nullable notation (int?, string?, etc). How I can have problems using these together, I ever use Nullable instead... I will use iterators when I have nothing more important to do... The only thing what I use and abuse is the provider model (membership, sitemap, etc). But have the problem what is developed to read configurations of the web.config. If you wish use in Windows Forms, will be needed a lot of work to read from app.config (I have mentioned, what even if you use class libraries, you need referencing things like System.Web.Configuration, Syste.Web.Security, etc) This is my points and rants :) -- modified at 19:39 Monday 14th August, 2006 Jesus is Love! Tell to someone! :-)
click.ok wrote:
MyBox objects
If generics are anything like C++ templates, then MyBox is not a type, and can therefore not have any instances. Generics/templates are in essence copy'n'paste mechanisms requiring no actual copy'n'paste. :)
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
-
Christian Graus wrote:
but how often do you use an anonymous method or iterators
I'm not sure what "good code practices" are for anonymous methods, I just figure that it would be for a line or two of code, and this is the first time I've had something that met that requirement. As to iterators, I have yet to write my own iterator or type the word "yield". That's probably because of the nature of the code I write, rather than whatever kind of code you write that would leverage iterators. I use partial classes a lot, because it keeps the source file smaller. And typed containers, like you said, are everywhere. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmerMarc Clifton wrote:
As to iterators, I have yet to write my own iterator or type the word "yield". That's probably because of the nature of the code I write, rather than whatever kind of code you write that would leverage iterators.
I haven't written a line of code using the yield stuff. But from what I can tell, it does have potential for clever patterns. Do you know if yield can handle non-linear collections such as dictionaries?
-- Made From Meat By-Products
-
click.ok wrote:
MyBox objects
If generics are anything like C++ templates, then MyBox is not a type, and can therefore not have any instances. Generics/templates are in essence copy'n'paste mechanisms requiring no actual copy'n'paste. :)
-- Torn from tomorrow's headlines
Generics are more than just copy-and-paste mechanisms - they are special "incomplete" types whose "type slots" are filled in dynamically at JIT time with the types specified in code that uses specific instances of them. When people use a specific version of a generic type in their code, what it is bound against is an actual compiled type in the assembly, with all the metadata, versioning, and other features of a normal type. You can even use reflection to create a specific instance of a generic type at runtime without having to specify the type arguments at compile time. This makes generics ideal for dynamic code gen and dynamic binding purposes.
-
Generics are more than just copy-and-paste mechanisms - they are special "incomplete" types whose "type slots" are filled in dynamically at JIT time with the types specified in code that uses specific instances of them. When people use a specific version of a generic type in their code, what it is bound against is an actual compiled type in the assembly, with all the metadata, versioning, and other features of a normal type. You can even use reflection to create a specific instance of a generic type at runtime without having to specify the type arguments at compile time. This makes generics ideal for dynamic code gen and dynamic binding purposes.
-
Generics are more than just copy-and-paste mechanisms - they are special "incomplete" types whose "type slots" are filled in dynamically at JIT time with the types specified in code that uses specific instances of them. When people use a specific version of a generic type in their code, what it is bound against is an actual compiled type in the assembly, with all the metadata, versioning, and other features of a normal type. You can even use reflection to create a specific instance of a generic type at runtime without having to specify the type arguments at compile time. This makes generics ideal for dynamic code gen and dynamic binding purposes.
Still copy'n'paste in my book. :) List == IntList, List == StringList. Semantically, wherever you can put a List, you can put an IntList. The obvious benefit with the generics is that you don't have tio write all the methods (Append(), Delete(), etc) for each and every type you want to use. Ok, so I'll meet you halfway; it's copy'n'link for you, but copy'n'paste for the compiler/linker/JIT (it still has to "copy" for each new instantiation of the generic). :)
-- [LIVE] From Omicron Persei 8